Parker v. United States
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-09558
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Parker v. United States, Judge Halpern ordered Parker to clarify whether his filing was an appeal or a sentence challenge.
Darren Parker, whose unclear post-conviction filing must be identified as a direct appeal, withdrawn, or treated as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
What happened
In Parker v. United States, Darren Parker, who is representing himself, challenged his federal conviction and sentence after pleading guilty and receiving 60 months in prison followed by four years of supervised release.
Parker labeled his filing as a challenge under a law concerning federal prisoners’ detention, but he also said he was appealing his conviction. The court therefore found it unclear whether he intended to file a direct appeal or a post-conviction motion challenging his sentence.
Judge Halpern directed Parker to notify the court within 60 days whether he wanted the filing treated as an appeal or wanted to withdraw it. If Parker does not respond, the court will treat it as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; the court also said that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Parker v. United States · No. 7:21-cv-09558
- Philip Halpern
- Nov. 23, 2021
Background
Darren Parker, who was representing himself, was held at the Westchester County Jail and challenged the legality of his federal conviction and sentence. He had pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl. The judgment entered on October 25, 2021, imposed 60 months’ imprisonment followed by four years of supervised release.
Parker filed his application three days after judgment. He used a form for a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence, but crossed out “§ 2255” and replaced it with “§ 2241,” another federal prisoner-review provision. He also stated that he was appealing his conviction. His claims included alleged lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, a defective indictment, due-process violations, and ineffective assistance of counsel. He later submitted a memorandum raising additional issues.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the filing’s intended legal vehicle was unclear. Because it was filed within 14 days after judgment, it could be timely if treated as a notice of direct appeal. The court also explained that a challenge to a federal conviction and sentence is generally brought under § 2255 rather than § 2241. The court noted that some claims may need to be raised first on direct appeal before being presented in a later post-conviction motion.
Ruling
The court directed Parker to notify it within 60 days whether he intended the application to serve as a notice of appeal or wished to withdraw it. If Parker does not respond within that period, the court will construe the application as a motion under § 2255. The court stated that no answer was required at that time. Because Parker had not then made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, a certificate of appealability would not issue. The court also denied fee-free status for an appeal and directed the Clerk of Court to mail Parker a copy of the order. Judge Halpern signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.